Former Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe opposed international accountability for Sri Lanka, citing the nation’s World War II contributions as foundational to human rights. He advocates for domestic justice mechanisms and criticizes perceived double standards in the international community, particularly regarding Ukraine. Wickremesinghe urges for greater empowerment of Provincial Councils and insists on accountability for all perpetrators, while challenging the communication methods of the OHCHR.
In a recent interview, former Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe declared his strong opposition to Sri Lanka being brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He criticized Western nations for their perceived double standards and claimed that the modern human rights framework owes its existence to Sri Lanka’s contributions during World War II. Wickremesinghe firmly believes that justice for Tamil victims should be pursued through domestic channels rather than international courts.
Wickremesinghe noted the necessity of empowering Provincial Councils to enhance governance, acknowledging the shortcomings in implementing the 13th Amendment during his presidency. He asserted that all perpetrators must face accountability for their actions and emphasized the importance of fulfilling commitments made to the United Nations. His remarks coincided with ongoing demands from Tamil victims and an international push for independent investigations into wartime atrocities.
His comments mirror the positions held by previous Sri Lankan administrations, which have consistently resisted international accountability while advocating for local mechanisms. Amidst continued rejection of international inquiries, Wickremesinghe pointed out perceived biases in international responses, particularly in relation to Ukraine, asserting that Sri Lanka has not received similar autonomy in decision-making. He remarked on the disparity in treatment during a meeting between U.S. President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky.
Additionally, Wickremesinghe criticized the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for its communication methods. He remarked that while former High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay held differing views, dialogue should still be possible. Wickremesinghe suggested that the current OHCHR’s approach could be re-examined, challenging them to recognize their dependency on the very nations they scrutinize.
In a striking assertion, the former president claimed credit for the liberation of Europe, stating, “we liberated Europe,” highlighting the contributions of Sri Lankans, Indians, and Africans during World War II. He emphasized that had they not fought against tyranny, the establishment of a human rights charter would not have been possible.
In conclusion, Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent statements reveal a steadfast refusal to embrace international accountability mechanisms for Sri Lanka. By invoking the country’s historical contributions to World War II, he aims to justify this stance while advocating for locally empowered justice solutions. Yet, his remarks also reflect a broader pattern of resistance toward independent investigations into past human rights violations, raising concerns about the prospect of meaningful reform in Sri Lanka’s approach to accountability.
Original Source: www.tamilguardian.com
